LOS ANGELES | Downtown Project Rundown 3.0 - Page 10

Quixote · #**181** Posted **May 24, 2007, 3:51 AM**

The Brockman's website has two renders that show what the finished product will look like with the new restaurant and gourmet market.

http://www.thebrockman.com/gallery.html

LAMetroGuy · #**182** Posted **May 24, 2007, 2:48 PM**

Good news on LA Live's Ritz Tower.... I wish I could be there!

citywatch · #**183** Posted **May 25, 2007, 5:23 AM**

^ I'm relieved to know the hotel finally is going to be under construction. If there had been anymore wondering & delay about it, I'd be....

However, I guess I take the news in stride more than some of you because to me the entire proj, in effect, had its groundbreaking when work began on the Nokia & the bldgs around it. OTOH, if the site of LA Live had been like the one for Concerto over the past several months, with absolutely nothing going on, then I'd be saying hallelujah!!!! at reports of a ceremony on June 1.

I will say hallelujah!!! when someone reports that construction is taking place again on Concerto. And if I read a press release about a specific date for groundbreaking of the Park fifth proj, I'll say OMG!, OMG!, hallelujah!!! And if the media reports on an exact date when work will start on Titan's Olympic & City House, I'll be passed out from amazement & excitement.

citywatch · #**184** Posted **May 25, 2007, 5:32 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeHundred

I'm scared that since it's taking Concerto forever and a day to even get a piledriver on site, that we may not ever see 8th and Grand.

The big deadzone south of the Brockman & Coulter/mandell has gotta go, go, go. That & the parking lot where Park fifth is supposed to be built are 2 major gaps that I wanna see filled in ASAP. So the possibility that the timeline will be stretched out even further for at least one of these projs is the reason I'm becoming really pissed at the thought that Astani, unlike Meurelo, AEG or a few others, doesn't have the backbone to see major projs through to completion.

citywatch · #**185** Posted **May 25, 2007, 5:54 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sodha

Why does everybody fear this housing oversupply? Do we have any problems right now w/ the supply? It seems there is still such a hot demand, I can't forsee this going away, especially w/ such the strong renewed interest in urban living.

I like to think you're right, even more so since there's still not that huge a number of apts & condos in DT.

I think of all the ppl who drive miles & miles every day in their daily commute that bypasses DT on the way from their home in OC to Century city, or from the Valley to OC, or from Pasadena to El segundo, & I have to say, why the heck don't you ppl move closer to where you're driving to, or driving back from. How about moving to DT??!!

But even if demand for new housing in the hood stays strong, I wonder if a domino effect, triggered by weakness in housing sales in the burbs, will start to slow down ppl who want to move from there to DT? IOW, if ppl have trouble selling their house in costa mesa or encino, will they be less likely to wanna buy a new condo, or even rent an apt, in DT?

BTW, I also wonder how much of the experiences that Donald Trump is facing with his big housing tower in chicago is applicable, or not, to LA Live, Park fifth, & Titan's Olympic/City house?

Trump & Co. Hits Chicago to Drum Up Apartment Sales

By MONICA DAVEY
Published: May 25, 2007

CHICAGO, May 24 — It was a jarring sight for those going about their business in the low-key bustle of downtown on Thursday: Donald J. Trump, the New York developer, and his glamorous grown children stepping off Michigan Avenue surrounded by a swirling sea of camera crews he had summoned. For some, the visit and all its staged hoopla felt as unlikely in this city as Mr. Trump’s gleaming $850 million, 1,392-foot tall hotel and condominium tower, which has shot out of the ground in recent months complete with banners proclaiming his name along the edge of the Chicago River.

Noting that Chicago’s housing market was struggling, Mr. Trump said he had come to town to make sure people knew there were still units available in the building, which will open in phases beginning with the hotel in December. “We want to give people really good deals,” he said, as gusts of wind buffeted his trademark hair.

Many here had doubted that Mr. Trump would ever pull off his first foray in a city that prizes equally the architectural significance of its skyline and the down-to-earth nature of its personalities. There were early questions about financing, and smirks about the fanfare of Mr. Trump’s announcement a few years back that a winner on his hit television show, “The Apprentice,” would be the project’s manager.

But not far from the famed Wrigley Building and the Tribune Tower, on a spot where the dumpy 7-story Sun-Times building once squatted, it undeniably was here: 29 floors so far, 63 more to go and a crowd of men in hard hats climbing cranes and bulldozing even as the cameras rolled. Still, there are signs that Mr. Trump’s sense of luxury (11 spa rooms, what he promises will a “world-class signature restaurant,” a grand ballroom, an enormous swimming pool overlooking the river) may be a tad more luxurious than some here are willing to pay for.

People have committed to buy 601 of the planned 825 hotel and residential units, said Tere Proctor, sales director for the Trump International Hotel and Tower. But sales have slowed in recent months. Since January, only about eight have sold, Ms. Proctor acknowledged.

Prices range from $580,000 to more than $9 million, and local real estate brokers said some of the prices per square foot were striking buyers as more fitting for a city several hundred miles east of Chicago.

Mr. Trump’s tower has also struggled some on the publicity front. Another proposed tower — this one a twisting spire intended to be 2,000-feet tall and designed by the Spanish architect Santiago Calatrava — has grabbed the spotlight in recent months, in part because it would be the tallest in the nation. Mr. Trump, who had once suggested that his Chicago tower would be the tallest building in the world, on Thursday dismissed the “Chicago Spire” plan as “impractical” and said he would not want to build such a tall building anyway because buyers did not want to be terrorism targets.

Most people ignored the fuss as they walked by the news conference, but some pondered what so many changes ahead might mean for the city’s skyline. Doug Strubel, 43, politely offered the thought that Mr. Trump’s building might be in step with the style of some of the city’s sleeker works by Ludwig Mies van der Rohe. “Well, it’s shiny,” Mr. Strubel said, gazing over at the building. Then, as an afterthought, he added, “I guess this is what a television game show gets you.”

edluva · #**186** Posted **May 25, 2007, 12:30 PM**

my attempt at some rudimentary econ 101 here:

there is a high demand for housing in the sense that the need is there (lots of people crowding into apartments and garages), but this need does not translate into actual purchases due to the price run-up - angelenos do not earn enough to buy the supply.

in essence suppliers (luxury developers, pricey housing stock) are chasing rich people who don't really exist and demanders (poor latino/asian immigrants etc) are chasing housing at prices that don't exist, so nothing moves..hence, a bubble. that's where the idea of "oversupply" comes - people who can afford super-luxe condos run out before developers realize it because the developers failed to discriminate between "need" and "luxe" and went apeshit on luxe.

i like to use the analogy of the boxer who warms up slow, but is so intent on bashing the opponent that he continues swinging after the bell has rung. the developers are these boxers, responding late to an increase in demand (last to enter a market), but going buck-wild after the bell, after demand has waned.

fridayinla · #**187** Posted **May 25, 2007, 4:32 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edluva

my attempt at some rudimentary econ 101 here:

there is a high demand for housing in the sense that the need is there (lots of people crowding into apartments and garages), but this need does not translate into actual purchases due to the price run-up - angelenos do not earn enough to buy the supply.

in essence suppliers (luxury developers, pricey housing stock) are chasing rich people who don't really exist and demanders (poor latino/asian immigrants etc) are chasing housing at prices that don't exist, so nothing moves..hence, a bubble. that's where the idea of "oversupply" comes - people who can afford super-luxe condos run out before developers realize it because the developers failed to discriminate between "need" and "luxe" and went apeshit on luxe.

i like to use the analogy of the boxer who warms up slow, but is so intent on bashing the opponent that he continues swinging after the bell has rung. the developers are these boxers, responding late to an increase in demand (last to enter a market), but going buck-wild after the bell, after demand has waned.

I see where you're going with that. I think these luxe developers are banking on wealthy international buyers in addition to local buyers. Hopefully there's more of a market for the uber high-end than we think. We have to assume they're basing their investment (to develop product) on some evidence that there's a sustainable demand.

LAMetroGuy · #**188** Posted **May 25, 2007, 5:10 PM**

My opinion is that uber rich people don't "need" anything, they pretty much just WANT things and usually get them. Also the target audience is not necessarily your typical family looking at houses in Chino Hills... these are marketed to corporations, partnerships, and the wealthy looking for second homes, etc. So I believe that you are right, the need does not translate to actual purchases... it is the "WANT" of the rich that will translate to actual purchases.

So, to use your analogy, the suppliers aren't chasing rich people who "don't exist". It is the those persons or entities who DO EXISIT that are wanting the newest toy in downtown LA who are approaching the Ritz Residencies (and the likes Park 5th, City House, Olympic, Mandarin Oriental, etc.). Not sure what "poor" Latino and Asian immigrants have to do with demand on the Ritz, I would assume any ethnicity, if poor, have nothing to do with demand on expensive residencies???

Regarding the boxing analogy, nice try but WTF?? ... LOL???

ladowntowner · #**189** Posted **May 25, 2007, 5:51 PM**

I would just like to add that with condos starting in the $300's, a lot of units in developments DT are almost downright affordable when you consider that the median condo for L.A. County was around $445k in April. Median for condos in some of the 'burbs was well over $500k and the median for single family homes even in SOUTH-CENTRAL was around $460k. If you work in or around downtown, factor in the cost of your commute and those residences in the 'burbs are even more costly.

Gee.. lemme think.. do I wanna buy and live in south-central or downtown LA? Tough choice...

Of course the current wave of high-rise ultra-luxe developments are not even remotely in this price range and have a different target market. When they come on-line they will skew the median downtown upward significantly, but hopefully the "affordable" units will still be out there.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**190** Posted **May 25, 2007, 8:59 PM**

^ Let's see how the Century, Carlyle, Ritz Carlton, 9900 Wilshire, etc. fare when they're done. If it sells out fast, there's a bigger pool of uber-rich out there than we think.

But I also agree that affordable housing should be built in the city center, but I don't understand how will expensive land acquisition costs allow greedy developers to gain enough profit margin to vehemently pursue affordable housing (esp. with all the headache from red tape).

fridayinla · #**191** Posted **May 25, 2007, 10:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LosAngelesBeauty

But I also agree that affordable housing should be built in the city center, but I don't understand how will expensive land acquisition costs allow greedy developers to gain enough profit margin to vehemently pursue affordable housing (esp. with all the headache from red tape).

Agreed, that will never happen. The affordable/low income housing will have to come primarily from converted older SLO hotels and other existing properties. Also, many new developments are required to provide 20% of affordable housing units, like the Grand Avenue project.

LosAngelesBeauty · #**192** Posted **May 25, 2007, 10:13 PM**

^There doesn't seem to be any kind of solution in the foreseeable future. Twenty-percent affordable housing in a few thousand units coming online (which means far fewer less for affordable housing) in the next few years is literally a drop in the bucket, given that most people in LA County are economically poor, the need for affordable housing exceeds the supply coming to the market.

The idea of a mass transit system that works well is imperative to LA County's future. As the inner core of LA does become denser with infill development (mainly in West Central), it is ever more apparent that we need extensive rail to service the poor areas (outside the city) as well to have them be able to access the city easily. At the same time, we need adequate rail service in the inner core as well. This entail BILLIONS of dollars of public investment that I just don't think will happen anytime soon.

edluva · #**193** Posted **May 26, 2007, 9:42 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LAMetroGuy

My opinion is that uber rich people don't "need" anything, they pretty much just WANT things and usually get them. Also the target audience is not necessarily your typical family looking at houses in Chino Hills... these are marketed to corporations, partnerships, and the wealthy looking for second homes, etc. So I believe that you are right, the need does not translate to actual purchases... it is the "WANT" of the rich that will translate to actual purchases.

So, to use your analogy, the suppliers aren't chasing rich people who "don't exist". It is the those persons or entities who DO EXISIT that are wanting the newest toy in downtown LA who are approaching the Ritz Residencies (and the likes Park 5th, City House, Olympic, Mandarin Oriental, etc.). Not sure what "poor" Latino and Asian immigrants have to do with demand on the Ritz, I would assume any ethnicity, if poor, have nothing to do with demand on expensive residencies???

Regarding the boxing analogy, nice try but WTF?? ... LOL???

if you thought a little bit deeper, you'd understand that most of what economists refer to as our "housing shortage" doesn't apply to the "wanters" in your half-baked theory - it refers to the general populace of LA, one in which "poor latino and asian immigrants" become extremely relevant. but i don't expect that much from you.

and on another note, these newest toys aren't that expensive in themselves, so much as overpriced (overhyped) - 700sf closets for 500k, for example, aren't being bought by "uber rich" - you don't have to be uber rich by any means to get most of these condos.

which is why i think it's stupid when developers justify their million-dollar development-spree with the words "housing shortage" - they're adding a couple hundred units for mocha-sipping wannabes such as you, they're not supplying any broader market-driven need. that need will not be satisfied for many other reasons, a large one being the poverty rate among "needers".

but don't let me crash your party

LongBeachUrbanist · #**194** Posted **May 26, 2007, 2:01 PM**

^ For once I agree with you. This is all what I meant when I wrote:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongBeachUrbanist

The high price of real estate and steel is making downtown housing (both rental and condo) verrrry expensive. This is the limiting factor on demand.

Five years ago, a typical person could live in Downtown without much problem. But they didn't want to. Now, prices are so high that it's becoming nearly impossible for the average person to even rent in Downtown.

BTW, I'm not talking "poor" people. My wife and I have a combined income well into six figures, so I wouldn't consider us "poor". But finding a place in Downtown in our price range ($450-500k) has been a real challenge.

But I'm hopeful. Conversions along Broadway and Spring are continuing. These units (in general) are much more affordable and I think will continue to be. The Chapman is a good example.

Long-term, I'd like to see some policy changes that would encourage more medium-density housing in City West, Chinatown, The Flats (betw. DTLA and Boyle Heights), the Arts District, and University Park.

LongBeachUrbanist · #**195** Posted **May 26, 2007, 2:07 PM**

^ Then again, maybe the trend of historic conversions is not going to continue:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Downtown News

Though the firm Killefer Flammang Architects currently has seven historic buildings under construction, new commissions for adaptive reuse projects have all but dried up, Killefer noted.

Full article: Adaptive Reuse Revisited

ladowntowner · #**196** Posted **May 26, 2007, 7:36 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LongBeachUrbanist

^ Then again, maybe the trend of historic conversions is not going to continue...

I read the whole article and what I took away as the gist was that as long as creative parking solutions can be found and implemented, many more conversions can and will likely take place.

In other news (from the L.A. Times): MTA sets sights on Broadway

The MTA wants to close Broadway to cars, only allowing buses and delivery trucks between 2nd and 9th. I'm undecided on this. What I really would like to see return to the historic core's main drags (Main, Spring, Broadway, Hill, Olive, Grand, 7th, 1st, Olympic, etc.) is an electric trolley system replete with rails (none of that gas powered, rubber tire crap!) and overhead power lines. Now that would be practical for shoppers, residents, workers and tourists, good for business and super CLASSY!

DJM19 · #**197** Posted **May 26, 2007, 9:09 PM**

I dont think I want it closed to cars...

RAlossi · #**198** Posted **May 26, 2007, 10:05 PM**

I'd be fine with it closed to cars with two lanes for transit only. It might not even be too bad as just a pedestrian zone only. I think a lot of the traffic -- but not all -- comes from people seeking extreme alternatives to the 110 (taking Broadway north to the 101 from the 10). People will find alternatives to driving through Broadway, and I think the increased congestion will force more people onto buses, bikes and trains. Also, there must be a bike-friendly lane or other implementation to make Broadway a good biking corridor.

It's encouraging to think of the city reclaiming space from cars and dedicating it to transit and people. Streets shouldn't be simply conduits to speed people to work and home again. We don't have many places in the city where this could work. We should take the opportunities when they come along.

Easy · #**199** Posted **May 27, 2007, 12:20 AM**

I'm typically opposed to transit malls and I'm especially skeptical of putting one on the one downtown street that works. It'll be interesting to see what they have in mind for keeping the sidewalks pedestrian friendly with so many people standing around. They could easily end up a clustered, littered mess. Also I wonder about the businesses. What types of businesses will be attracted to a transit mall?

fridayinla · #**200** Posted **May 27, 2007, 9:41 PM**

Photos taken May 26, 2007:

Artisan on Second

Mura

Also, this building at 7th & Olive was recently announced for a condo conversion with retail:

Giannini Place